Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:06, 12 April 2021

United States: Government C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Category

The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article: Congressional Research Service: Radio Free Asia: Background, Funding, and Policy Issues, a report commissioned by Congress and in the public-domain. ‌

Initial comments

Should it really be categorized as "propaganda"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.210.107.101 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 November 2006.

I think so, just looking at its history and main listeners are all the socialist countries.--Ksyrie 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is. If the Chinese Government (or Russian Government) constantly broadcasted their condescending rants over to the American population ("communism rocks! democracy is flawed" etc.), or focused on Americans who were not happy with America (laws, freedom, conflict etc.) the US Government will shut the stations down immediately. As it is, the only thing foreign governments are producing are "Life in (whatever country)" and language and music shows. Maybe America should stick to the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.120.73 (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposing new page

Without objection, I am going to create a separate entry for the current, modern, Radio Free Asia. This Radio Free Asia was created in the mid-90s originally as the Asia Pacific Network. It was renamed Radio Free Asia as part of the congressional approval and funding process and has no connection whatsoever with the CIA operation mentioned by a Wiki editor. The current RFA and the operation from the 50s share nothing but a name. Hartwh 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)hartwh, March 27

I object. It is clearly in the tradition of the earlier RFA. Why else would they have continued to use the same name? —Babelfisch 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to you, Babelfisch. I am related to one of the top administrators at RFA, I know the history pretty well. The station referenced in this article as the precursor to the modern RFA was known as Radio For Asia; funding was cut off and the project was scrapped before 1957. RFA's only mission is to broadcast democratic radio to oppressed countries, including Myanmar and China. The US government started up Radio Free Asia after Radio Free Europe (RFE) met with considerable success; administrators at RFE were thanked by the president after the Cold War ended for their contribution to ending communism in Russia. Please do not tarnish the reputation this outstanding broadcast station with incorrect, nonsensical and conspiracy theorist-like statements that lack a figment of credit. Many employees of RFA put themselves in danger travel to unstable parts of Asia in hopes of opening the minds of the oppressed. Some employees have suffered inhuman conditions while imprisonmed by intolerant anti-democratic governments RFA broadcasts to. RFA has also created hundreds of race- and class-blind jobs throughout Asia, offering competetive pay. The notion that RFA is affiliated with the CIA is beyond foolish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.244.42.188 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Babelfisch, a very small amount of research on this topic reveals that one of the very sources already referenced on this page disproves the alleged CIA link. A source linked in the references does, however, state that "editorials in major Chinese newspapers claiming that the CIA is behind the broadcast operation." These accusations sound familiar. Hartwh 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)hartwh, May 9

Three sources are given for the paragraph in question and I have re-inserted it.

Anonymous "relations to top administrators" are not relevant sources.

What Susan B. Epstein wrote was commissioned by the US government, and she doesn't quote any sources. In another report, by the way, she writes that "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) began broadcasting in 1950 under the clandestine auspices of the Central Intelligence Agency. The purpose of BIB was to provide a firewall between the U.S. government (the CIA) and RFE/RL’s surrogate broadcasting to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The idea was that by keeping RFE/RL separate from the U.S. government, its credibility would be increased." That sounds familiar, too. —Babelfisch 08:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More on difference

Additionally, one of the very sources cited (the 2nd footnote) in this article currently makes reference to startup funding:

"In 1994 legislation, Congress rebuffed moves to pull the plug on RFE/RL but resolved that it should look for private sources of funding. The law also provided start up funds for RFA. To coordinate operations and avoid overlap, all of the radios - including the VOA - were brought under the direction of the BBG, which at that point was to operate as a USIA sub-unit."

Hartwh 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)hartwh March 27

"private, nonprofit corporation"

Just a collection of American citizens eager to share their gift of freedom with the world. Really. 68.145.210.83 (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Can I take out the word "private" ? Doesn't it get the funding from the US government ? Money talks. JW19335762743 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The boss is the US Federal Government, when I deleted the word "private", an editor called Dodi8238 took out my modification and asked me for "reliable source". ... But actually RFA's web page does claim it to be "private, nonprofit corporation ". Oh well, so maybe I should not blame this Mr. Dodi8238. RFA got its funding from the US government, it is clearly stated on their web site, I just do not agree on the word "private". The exact words are "Radio Free Asia is a private, nonprofit corporation that is funded by the U.S. Government through an annual grant from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), an independent federal agency charged with overseeing all U.S. civilian international broadcasting". English is not my first language so I will not waste my time arguing about the definition of "private corporation". I do think it's ridiculous to describe RFA as "private" JW19335762743 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Being a private corporation and being publicly funded are clearly not mutually exclusive. Please provide a reliable source that describes the legal status of RFA as something other than a private corporation. Otherwise, you are just using this talk page as a forum for discussing the topic: Misplaced Pages talk pages are meant to be used for discussing how to improve articles, not for venting one's feelings about them. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The following web site http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ provides definitions of "public corporation" and "private corporation", RFA fits the definition of private corporation because its stock is not publicly traded, but it also fits the definition of public corporation because it essentially is government owned. I say just call it a non-profit corporation, take out the word "private" to improve this article JW19335762743 (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly: Saying that RFA is government owned based solely on the fact that it receives public funding is not good enough, because we are building an encyclopedia and require reliable sources, not personal opinions. If you want this article to say that RFA is owned by the U.S. Government, you must be able to provide a reliable source that directly, and without need for analysis or interpretation, supports that claim. Secondly: It appears like you are trying to synthesize your opinions about the subject with other facts in order to reach or imply the conclusion that RFA is not a private corporation. It is against Misplaced Pages's policy on original research to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that directly contradicts the statement that Radio Free Asia is a private corporation. Until you do, I see no reason for this article to omit that information because it is directly supported by a reliable source. If you want to discuss the reliability of that specific source for that particular statement, you are welcome to consult the reliable sources noticeboard. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional information, from the English Misplaced Pages article about United States Information Agency : "From the beginning, Dwight Eisenhower said, “audiences would be more receptive to the American message if they were kept from identifying it as propaganda. Avowedly propagandistic materials from the United States might convince few, but the same viewpoints presented by the seemingly independent voices would be more persuasive". The phrases "the same viewpoints" and "seemingly independent" are quite interesting. JW19335762743 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is owned by the USG, it is not private regardless of its articles of incorporation. It is like the TVA ... a public arm of the USG. "Private" it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.138 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

There seems to be some dispute on the accuracy of article content and whether subject was/is independent. Contributors such as Mark and jez have raised such concerns. There is also disagreement on foundation or CIA associations.

The organization appears to have been independently founded in the 1950s as an anti-communist outlet. However, hundreds of declassified CIA documents from 1950s indicate close connections between RFA, CIA, State Dept and so forth. There is a great wealth of information in these documents; which I have included on a scratchpad here: User:Dsprc/0. Quite a bit of history is completely absent; mayhaps review of these documents could provide a source for expansion and clarification. I have only conducted a cursory review of them, but this limited review turned up documents which challenge the notion RFA was founded by CIA (although no objection to claim of them driving content), and the date would appear to be 1951, not 1950.

I have not yet reviewed the previously included --and (oddly) subsequently removed-- references to Mr. Engelhardt's publication and the others listed in Further Reading. The now Further Reading section appears to have been previously used as a pseudo-reference section; as such I dug those older edits out and reintroduced the refs. These need to be mined by individuals with access to them for additional information (such as those with access provided by university or a well stocked public library or library network).

As for current independence, this is debatable. As the current organization is chartered by law to advance U.S. foreign policy interests, viewpoints and so on; RFA's continued operation depend upon it. This can hardly be viewed as independent... BBG is not an wholly "independent" agency, anymore than the CIA is "independent" (such official nomenclature is quite Orwellian in nature). RFA is managed and funded by the BBG; BBG is managed and funded by State; State is an agency of the Executive branch and overseen by the Congress -- former Sect. of State Hillary Clinton has testified before Congressional Committee on numerous occasions and spoke to their external propaganda initiatives, including those involving BBG, VOA, RFE/RL etc.

RFA would appear to be very close in nature to RFE/RL, in that they've present-day operations but deep connection to "Cold War" era propaganda. In any-event, the article is severely lacking of information and in need of expansion. Expansion could probably alleviate such dispute, as limited coverage would seem to be a source of contention.

P.S. Since Mark and jez has expressed interest in making sure subject is accurately portrayed, I would like to extend the offer to collaborate going through the documents to flush out the history of the pre-1994 RFA... assuming you can put that bias of yours aside, anyway. ;-) And let any other debates not interfere with that collaboration (agree to disagree sort of thing). -- dsprc  01:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Any analyses or interpretation of the declassified CIA documents should be left to reliable secondary sources, as required by Misplaced Pages's policies on original research: "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

 Dodi 8238: Indeed. A lead is helpful in finding other sources, however. Reviewing primary documents is sometimes a good place to start in locating secondary coverage. Need to be mindful of confirmation biases though, or parroting CIA talking points, and stuff like Operation Mockingbird. -- dsprc  00:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Radio Free Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927001620/http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/97-52_19971024.pdf to http://opencrs.cdt.org/rpts/97-52_19971024.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Consider Semi-Protecting to prevent pervasive anti-RFA edits

Many anonymous editors continually cleanse the article to make it anti-rfa.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Tree In A Box (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent back and forth editing

We are having quite some back and forth editing in the opening paragraph now. Can we agree on the following three things: a) there is no need to say twice that the USAGM is an "independent agency", b) There is no need to mention the previous name of the USAGM and the link to the USAGM should be updated and c) it is relevant to say what the mission of the USAGM is, namely to "inform in accordance with the broad foreign policy objectives of the USA" (that is a neutral way to state what they aim for and avoids the bias of "propaganda")? Let's please discuss here before making more back and forth changes Jaeljojo (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to reduce repetition regarding the USAGM, but given the name change is very recent, I don't see the benefit of removing the older name at the moment. Not sure what you mean by the link needing to be updated, it appears to direct to the current title. As for c, its addition was unsourced, and is inappropriate on this article unless a source links the quote to RFA. Without a few sources, it would be undue for the lead. CMD (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I doubt many people know the BBG but happy to leave that in. The reference 6 is dead though and there should be a reference to the USAGM as well. As for c), it stems from the Misplaced Pages page of the USAGM, but of course we can add that same reference in the RFA article as well. Jaeljojo (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

And I think it is very relevant to add c) as it is important for the mission of the RFA and the USAGM and clearly differentiates RFA from independent news channels Jaeljojo (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding c would be WP:SYNTH unless a source links it directly to RFA. It is OR to state it is the mission of RFA. There is already clear differentiation, given there are already two quoted aims (which are different) in different paragraphs of the lead. CMD (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we then agree on the following: "It is funded and supervised by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors), an independent agency of the United States government", which also supervises other media outlets such as Voice of America"? Jaeljojo (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems good, although the second sentence on the 2017 change should be moved to the History section rather than deleted. CMD (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jaeljojo saying that usage of the word "propaganda" is "biased" is simply wrong. Propaganda is defined as: information or ideas that are spread by an organized group or government to influence people’s opinions, esp. by not giving all the facts or by secretly emphasizing only one way of looking at the facts as per Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary. Ever since its conception as an anti-communist propaganda broadcasting operation, its goal has stayed the same: to broadcast anti-communist propaganda, to counter the narrative of the Chinese Communist Party and to promoting "democratic values" and "human rights". To say that this does not fall under the definition of Propaganda would be to show your "bias" and a disregard of WP:NPOV. Therefore, to deny Radio Free Asia being a propaganda broadcasting service would be not holding a WP:NPOV. Additionally, Misplaced Pages does not consider the usage of the word "propaganda" to imply any kind of bias, as evidenced by its use in many wiki pages to date. Next time please try to reach a WP:CON before engaging in an WP:WAR. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@CPCEnjoyer not sure why you address this to me as I am not the one who introduced or deleted the word "propaganda" in the article and I am the one who started to have a reasonable discussion after quite some back and forth editing. Next time, please read the history of the article before writing such comments. Thanks Jaeljojo (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jaeljojo I have read this discussion, in your original contribution to this talk page you said that usage of the word propaganda somehow implies bias, which I have explained to you is a false notion. I was assuming you were arguing in good faith, but after your reply where you display hostility for me simply quoting sources and challenging your opinion, I am not quite sure if that is the case. Also, I am sorry if you got the impression that this was some personal attack on you, that was not my intention. My intention was to make it clear to the users of Misplaced Pages that Radio Free Asia was, and still is, an US service used to broadcast propaganda. However, I still want to reach a consensus with both you and CMD, so please, dicuss. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Do reliable sources commonly describe it as a propaganda outfit? CMD (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The BBC and the New York Times have both referred to it as propaganda (NY Times however referring to its early incarnation). I don't see it being used in a biased manner. It's a fairly matter of fact descriptor. I'm for including it in the lead sentence. ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

That BBC article actually doesn't refer to it as propaganda, instead describing it as a "US government-funded news service". The lead here should be similar. CMD (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why, exactly? There is no precedent for using journalistic phrasing as-is to fill for Misplaced Pages lead descriptors nor is it regular that any label must be expressis verbis repeated in multiple journalistic sources to be used. Materially, Radio Free Asia, as a government sponsored news source, historically with its course determined covertly by the CIA and currently focusing its programming nearly solely on issues meant to cause civil dissatisfaction with the governments of various Asian countries - Vietnam, China etc. and otherwise not reporting any other news to a significant capacity (selective reporting) - bears all the hallmarks of a propaganda outlet regardless if the issues it does report on are factually reported correctly. Compare the BBC - which is also publicly funded, yet compared to the RFA has a much broader topical reach, has different target audience selection criteria (does not specially target citizens of nations outside its funding source's sphere of political influence), and a broad catalogue of topical reporting (compare to specifically picked issues that RFA deals in) - all of those things differentiate a "government-funded news service" (BBC) from what certainly is, materially, a propaganda outlet. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Because of Misplaced Pages policy. Pulling sources on different issues together to draw novel conclusions is contrary to WP:SYNTH. The interpretation of primary sources is expressly warned against in WP:PRIMARY. WP:DUE opens with "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." CMD (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The interpretation of primary source reference number four by EuanHolewicz432 falls under the first policy primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. An implication that U.S. government printing office does not reputably publish senate hearings seems quite preposterous. There is no pulling sources on different issues together to draw novel conclusions either, because just from the reference number three or four by themselves, you can see that Radio Free Asia is considered a tool for propaganda. Therefore there is no need to draw novel conclusions from multiple separate sources. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what you stated is Misplaced Pages policy - yet it still does not support what you are putting forward. The sources I and other users have presented are single issue, and (casting a wide net over the US government) single origin - it is not interpretation to use words that describe at short what is described at length in a primary source. The primary-secondary source interplay in Misplaced Pages does not restrict editors to use only terms, as I have stated already, used expressis verbis by publishers/sources as this would result in Misplaced Pages being simply a collection of source quotes and not an encyclopedia. It is contrary to the very concept of language itself. I am not extrapolating facts beyond what is given within those sources - I am simply presenting the facts given and displaying that, materially, these facts together form what one would refer to as "propaganda" or a "propaganda outlet" - this is not research, this is simply using language. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting facts together is a clear example interpretation and synth. If the issue is so clear, there should be a variety of reliable secondary sources that cover the topic similarly with similar language. CMD (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as you completely ignored everything I just said, let me use an example so you may better comprehend it:

Imagine the following headline from the BBC: "Islamist attack in Kabul kills 23, wounds 16". The BBC news article describes at length how a bomb was detonated in Kabul, and an Islamist group claimed responsibility, citing recent military activity by the United States as the instigating factor behind their attack. You decide to create an article about the attack. For the sake of argument, the BBC source is the only one you got and the only one that exists. You decide to title the page "2021 Kabul terror attack". Let's stop right here. You have, in your interpretation of the aforementioned policy, just done original research. How? At no point during this description was the word "terrorist" or "terror" used. Let's say it's not used in the news article body either. Does this mean you cannot use the descriptor? Obviously, this attack bears all the hallmarks of terrorism - both in the popular consciousness and by the dictionary definition of what terrorism is. Yet, by the incredibly broad (yet, on the editors' part, restrictive) definition of what is synth/interpretation you have managed to get yourself into a frankly ridiculous situation - you cannot, as the saying goes, call a spade a spade.

With that out of the way I think it is far more obvious what problems I have with your approach to the "original research" policy. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a good example, Misplaced Pages editors should not be describing events as terror or terrorist attacks without secondary sources supporting this, and not be generating novel titles when existing ones can be created from the sources available. CMD (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

That is a good example of how absolutely ridiculous this interpretation of WP policy is, rather. But if it is your wish to policy-war instead of making material improvements to the article, let me point out that SYNTH is not important per se, anyway - and to boot, the "thesis I have derived" from my "research" is laughably obvious, as it constitutes nothing more than looking at a set of facts and describing them with a word that fits them - also known, as I mentioned before, as language. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's an example there is literally a guideline for, at MOS:TERRORIST, so if you wish to change the interpretation the correct venue is Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. CMD (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Please do stay on topic as per WP:TALK#TOPIC, I believe EuanHolewicz432 has established that your claim of the suggested edit being a SYNTH is wrong and even if it were correct, it would not be against the Misplaced Pages's policy WP:POL. Do you have any other remarks towards the edit or has consensus been established for this issue? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines and policy are on topic, if you also disagree with them I also ask you direct your questions to the appropriate talk pages rather than here. CMD (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Again you omit any mention of why you disagree with the edit, even after your claims of it breaking community policy are disproven. Remember to communicate your problems with the edit and be objective. But to indulge you, no, the word propaganda is not considered a Value-laden label. Looking at your contribution history, I see you have long stopped assuming good faith of me, EuanHolewicz432 or ToeSchmoker, even going as far as to claim that Euan is a "sockpuppet". I, again, ask: What are your remarks about the suggested edit, what community policy does it breach? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You are making it incredibly hard to assume good faith, considering you retreat to unrelated policy in ignorance of the actual meaning of the example I provided - I could construct another, but I will simply assume you would dismiss it with unrelated criticism again instead of addressing the crux of the argument. To avoid this misdirection perhaps I should be more direct and blunt - in light of the evidence presented here, do you, the editor disputing the change, deny that the word "propaganda" - in the neutral, non-loaded sense - accurately describes the output of the agency in question ie. Radio Free Asia? It's a yes or no question. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating primary evidence is specifically mentioned as something not to do in WP:PRIMARY. The crux of the matter is that articles need to reflect the WP:NOR policy, as well as WP:WEIGHT. Good sourcing is the first step to these. CMD (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read correctly. Re-read what I said and answer the question. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you have been ignoring my messages, I have already corrected your (perhaps intentional) misinterpretation of policy that primary evidence can not be used. The interpretation of primary source reference number four by EuanHolewicz432 falls under the first policy: primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. An implication that U.S. government printing office does not reputably publish senate hearings seems quite preposterous. Furthermore, your claim that this is WP:SYNTH or WP:NOR has already been disproven as well. If you do not believe me please do take a read through WP:SYNTHNOT. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

1. "About". Retrieved 10 April 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propaganda
3. ^ Central Intelligence Agency (1 April 1953). "Memorandum For: Special Assistant to the President; International Radio Broadcasting by Radio Free Asia" (PDF). foia.cia.gov. Central Intelligence Agency. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
4. "BROADCASTING: THE REVIEW OF PRIORITIES. HEARING, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, UNITED STATES SENATE". www.govinfo.gov. U.S. Government Printing Office. 26 April 2000. Retrieved 11 April 2021.

• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles